scholarly journals Term Induction of Labour in Nulliparous Women: When to draw the line?

2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S641-S642
Author(s):  
Jill M. Mitchell ◽  
Patrick Dicker ◽  
Sarah M. Nicholson ◽  
Suzanne Smyth ◽  
Grace Madigan ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Craven ◽  
Fionnuala Byrne ◽  
Rhona Mahony ◽  
Jennifer M. Walsh

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare rates of induction and subsequent caesarean delivery among nulliparous women with private versus publicly funded health care at a single institution. This is a retrospective cohort study using the electronic booking and delivery records of nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies who delivered between 2010 and 2015 in an Irish Tertiary Maternity Hospital (approx. 9000 deliveries per annum). Methods Data were extracted from the National Maternity Hospital (NMH), Dublin, Patient Administration System (PAS) on all nulliparous women who delivered a liveborn infant at ≥37 weeks gestation during the 6-year period. At NMH, all women in spontaneous labour are managed according to a standardised intrapartum protocol. Twenty-two thousand two hundred thirty-two women met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2520 (12.8%) were private patients; the remainder (19,712; 87.2%) were public. Mode of and gestational age at delivery, rates of and indications for induction of labour, rates of pre-labour caesarean section, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were examined. Rates of labour intervention and subsequent maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between those with and without private health cover. Results Women attending privately were more than twice as likely to have a pre-labour caesarean section (12.7% vs. 6.5%, RR = 2.0, [CI 1.8–2.2])); this finding persisted following adjustment for differences in maternal age and body mass index (BMI) (adjusted relative risk 1.74, [CI 1.5–2.0]). Women with private cover were also more likely to have induction of labour and significantly less likely to labour spontaneously. Women who attended privately were significantly more likely to have an operative vaginal delivery, whether labour commenced spontaneously or was induced. Conclusions These findings demonstrate significant differences in rates of obstetric intervention between those with private and public health cover. This division is unlikely to be explained by differences in clinical risk factors as no significant difference in outcomes following spontaneous onset of labour were noted. Further research is required to determine the roots of the disparity between private and public decision-making. This should focus on the relative contributions of both mothers and maternity care professionals in clinical decision making, and the potential implications of these choices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Branko Denona ◽  
Michael Foley ◽  
Rhona Mahony ◽  
Michael Robson

Abstract Background To demonstrate that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference in the labour outcome among induced nulliparous and multiparous women. Methods Obstetric outcome, specifically caesarean section rates, among induced term nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous caesarean section were analyzed in this cross-sectional study using the Robson 10 group classification for the year 2016. Results In the total number of 8851 women delivered in 2016, the caesarean section rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.84% (151/1925) and 32.63% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.37% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B (Robson M, Fetal Matern Med Rev, 12; 23–39, 2001) were 3.91% (133/3397) and 2.86% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term. Conclusion The data suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference between nulliparous and multiparous women.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Hell Hansen ◽  
Maria Jeppegaard ◽  
Axelina Eriksson ◽  
Sarah C. B. Jeppesen ◽  
Lone Krebs

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to compare nulliparous women’s experiences of induction of labour with two different regimens of misoprostol.Methods: In two different hospitals, nulliparous women undergoing medical induction of labour were asked to complete a questionnaire after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire regarding mood and feelings during induction of labour, experience of labour and experience of induction.The questionnaire was completed by 123 (42.7%) of 288 eligible women; 57 (46.3%) had been allocated to oral misoprostol and 66 (53.7%) to slow-release vaginal insert. An independent-samples T-test was used for comparison of parametric continuous variables and a Pearson chi-square test was used for categorical data.Results: Women induced with oral misoprostol experienced a more painful induction of labour (p=0.019) and described feeling the length of stay at hospital as too long (p=0.028). The overall experience of giving birth after induction of labour was reported as “good” among 87.8% of women induced with oral misoprostol compared to 72.7% of women induced with slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert (p=0.039). Conclusions: Induction with low-dose oral misoprostol in nulliparous women is associated with experience of more pain and longer duration but overall a more positive experience of labour compared with induction with slow-release misoprostol vaginal insert.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02693587 on February 262,016.EudraCT number 2020–000366-42 on 23 January 2020, retrospectively registered.


Author(s):  
Paridhi Gupta ◽  
Indu Chawla ◽  
Sonal Gupta

ABSTRACTBackground: Induction of labour is an indispensable part of modern obstetrics and certainly one of the most frequently performed obstetric procedure in the world. Oxytocin, being the most common inducing agent with multiple protocols being practiced, further research is required for the establishment of better protocol with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes.Methods: Randomized comparative study including 100 term nulliparous women (randomized into high dose, group-I and low dose, group-II with 50 patients in each group) was done. High dose regimen was started with 4mu/min with increment of 4mu/min up to a maximum of 32mu/min and low dose regimen was started with 2mu/min with increment of 2mu/min up to a maximum of 32mu/min. Induction to delivery interval was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes noted were rate of caesarean section, tachysytole with or without fetal distress, failed induction, maternal outcomes like need for instrumental vaginal delivery, PPH and choriamnionitis, neonatal outcomes like NICU admission, umbilical cord pH and apgar score.Results: There was significant reduction seen in induction to delivery interval among those induced with high dose oxytocin regimen. It was found to be 6.96±3.77 hours in group-I and 9.05±4.65 hours in group-II (p value 0.034). Though incidence of tachysystole was more in high dose regimen, it was not statistically significant. No significant difference was seen in secondary outcomes.Conclusions: On the basis of present study, high dose oxytocin regimen can be considered for induction of labour as it has same effects as that of low dose regimen with lesser induction to delivery interval.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document